This means that the Apple-produced runtime will not be maintained at the same level, and may be removed from future versions of Mac OS X.
Obvious reason: people aren't using the Apple-produced runtime in Mac Applications?
Applications developed in Objective-C / Cocoa are more specific to the OS X platform, providing Apple a competitive advantage when developers build their apps using Cocoa, instead of something portable like Java.
Not in Apple's best interest for Mac apps to be developed using Java.
Not only can they be run on other platforms, but Java-based apps may not conform to Apple UI design guidelines
However.... exploiting any intellectual property says nothing about "making something intellectual property" that was not intellectual property before.
And doesn't say anything about giving the commission the exclusive right to exploit any intellectual property.
The most obvious definition of 'exploit intellectual property' is.... they can sell post cards with a picture of the historic place featured, even if someone else took the picture, and didn't give them permission.
It says nothing about "seizing any intellectual property" or "denying other people the right to exploit their own intellectual property, if relating to the monument", or "creating intellectual property rights from thin air", and enforcing them retroactively
The British public pays to maintain these sites, and an awful lot of money at that, so why should some company be allowed to step in and enjoy the benefits of the public's investment?
Because they took photographs a long time ago, maybe long before the current 'owners' of the property were involved, and don't need the public's investment? e.g. The public's investment has nothing to do with it
They are 5000 years old. You think the public needs to continuously invest anything in them, to keep them existing? All the public has to do is not destroy them.
A VPN is no more secure than SSH, and if the VPN is compromised, chances are you are in worse shape than if one server were compromised, plus VPNs are susceptible to the same type of attack as SSH. While an "illusion of safety" tends to propagate among VPN users, this arrangement is no more secure.
VPNs have their place, which is not to secure remote management sessions to server infrastructure. VPNs are for joining pieces of a corporate LAN together over an untrusted network, where the LAN runs insecure protocols, and workers who need access to remote things on a corporate LAN, using insecure protocols such as Windows file sharing.
And you stated a big issue so I barely need to -- the VPN server can die, and probably when you're across the country.
but things like routers and switches have no business being administered by an unverified source.
Who said anything about routers and switches?
We're talking about servers.
Most routers and switches deployed on the internet don't even support SSH for management, they either use either serial only, or plaintext Telnet + Serial.
Routers and switches shouldn't be exposing control plane management ports outside the local subnet, because (in general), they don't have the hardware to resist a flood, and software is infrequently updated on routers, they would be ideal DoS and hacker targets.
Routers and switches can be administered over the serial port, with the serial console switch you dial into via modem or SSH into, again, with public key authentication.
Ideological arguments have no place in developing software for your boss.
If they ask you for feature X, you can inform them of the issues and give them a choice.
The choice to avoid "feature bloat" is not your choice, if all the features are demanded or wanted by the customer.
Nothing really excuses failing to validate input, whether 'abbreviations' of some sort are allowed or not.
Checking for a 'year value not provided' and appending a default in the user interface code is so trivial
and relevant to the problem, that it seems absurd to claim that it is not the best solution here.
No, simply listening to what users want will almost never work - because they don't know. Almost always, they have some vague idea, but that's it.
You have to listen to what they say, and intuit what they want, then formulate it, and ask them if that is right.
If you can't do that much, software development for a customer is probably the wrong field for you.
Though you might manage to do code monkey / slave to the designer work,
who works to someone else's precisely defined spec.
Since that doesn't require intuit'ing that much, and if your code is wrong, it will just get kicked back to you by the reviewer
(aka slavedriver)
then when the user asked for a trivial feature to return the workload back to what it was before, the vendor gave up and trashed all their work
Obviously... the vendor couldn't take even the smallest criticism, and apparently decided they wanted to make a point out of the whole thing,
rather than address things in a reasonable manner.
This is not a technology problem, this is a customer service problem.
The parent did have one thing right, however, he obviously should not be in software development
working for a customer.
Open source is great when you want some special behavior in the sales quoting tool that only a tiny fractions of others anywhere would want but you otherwise want the base set of features the mass market wants.
Quoting is something a lot of businesses will want some fine-tuned control over. The software should be designed to bend to their business needs, not the other way around.
This strongly suggests that 'sales quoting' tools should have templating and scripting features, for advanced users, so each business can roll out the software without code changes, but with some scripts installed that suit their special needs.
They could have turned their class A into tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars...
Unlikely. They would have to convince ARIN to allow them to go along with it, in order to have any transfer of addresses acknowledged in the proper places: without that, the only way to distribute IPs would be for them to get into the ISP and DNS business, providing IP and Reverse DNS services to people.
Which could be more expensive than "tens of millions"
Under current policies, they could have revokable sub-delegations of their IP address space acknowledged, if they signed the RSA agreement with ARIN, but to be able to make any type of permanent transfer, they would have to agree to the full RSA, making the IP space no longer "legacy", in other words, current policies would start applying to it, RIR fees, etc
if IP allocation were governed for market forces instead of some dudes that demand paperwork and some justification...
What are you talking about? IP allocat is governed by market forces.
Who do YOU think ARIN is?
Hint: ARIN is an industry organization whose members are the ISPs and resource holders in North America.
Also, without ISPs all over the world recognizing ARIN's allocations, ARIN has no power of enforcement of its wishes, it simply does what its officers elected by the broader community of ISPs agree that they want ARIN to do.
Nortel that is now nothing but a bankrupt shell has another 16 million.
And the fact they are now 'nothing but a bankrupt shell' is exactly what's going to
stop them from being able to take the specific affirmative actions that are required to return IP addresses.
Their creditors are going to want those networks, and therefore, the IP addresses that go with them.
I think Google has offered to delete the data, but some goverments ordered them not to. If i were google, i wouldnt go the "extra mile" as it may cause them a law suite. I would contact the other goverments where data has been collected
The answer should have been... "We already deleted it, sorry."
Why the heck would they announced that they inadvertently collected data, without guaranteeing its destruction first,
so the data would be gone before anyone could dare ask for some order to request preservation?
Oh yes, *that* won't have any dire economic effects. Unemployment uptick/Deflationary spiral FTW!
No. The government's reckless use of money, and failure to control minimize costs, and unnecessary programs and spending are extremely toxic and causing the unemployment upticks and deflationary spiral.
If the cost cutbacks were accompanied with the corresponding tax cut to return wasted revenue to the "shareholders" (aka, the Taxpayers), the most probable immediate results would be a big drop in unemployment, the start of an economic boom, and the long term results would be extremely favorable.
The government's shopping and hiring sprees are extremely detrimental.
Being the largest employer does not mean you employ the majority of the populace.
However, it should be noted the government seems to be the only company expanding during a recession.
The Federal government needs to do the financially and economically responsible thing and cut its budgets and lay off at least half its workforce, concentrating on the highest-paid least-productive workers.
A single CD being shared by two people? Sounds like copyright infrignment to me.
Yep. Two total cases of copyright infringement (one per person).
And the result will be DMCA letters sent to the gas stations to stop supplying that car with gas,
followed by DMCA letters to the grocery store demanding they stop supplying the infringers with
food and drinks they can consume, to enable them to continue to infringe, followed up ultimately,
by a DMCA Cease and Decist letter to the almighty God, c/o the church they are members of them,
demanding that the lord almighty cease and decist allowing these alleged infringers to continue to exist.
This could also be serving self-interest of keeping a low profile.
Smashing a window attracts a lot more immediate attention than fumbling with a lock.
It will be immediately obvious that the car has been busted, the police might get called sooner, resulting in a catch of the thief still nearby
There happens to be a nearby goldilocks planet (venus) who is DEEP in the throws of runaway greenhouse effects, which would make a PRIME test target, devoid of any bioethical considerations, since it is devoid of life.
The problem with Venus is you don't have massive infrastructure in place to be able to measure a 0.0000000001% difference in temperature caused by your shade, at enough places.
All this "CO2" stuff should be among the least of our concerns compared to overpopulation of the planet; global human population increase,
and world wide civilization and social infrastructure unsustainable at current rates of human reproduction and population growth.
There is no evidence to support the theory that concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere are a toxic hazard, or will be a toxic hazard, even if CO2 climbs at 5ppm per year (which would be unpredented), it would take almost 50000 years, before a toxic level is attained. Obviously with even slightly higher concentrations of CO2, the CO2-munching bacteria and vegetation would be proliferating in higher numbers, and applying substantial downward pressure to the rate of CO2 increase.
The idea that CO2 concentration can grow without bound, by accident has no basis; there is no reason to assume that.
To reduce CO2 concentrations for anytime soon, the destruction of forests and similar have to be stopped, and need to be fully replenished as soon as possible. It is simply unrealistic to speculate that the mere cessation of fossil fuel use would have any significant effect on atmospheric CO2 concentrations, as there will always be a lot of organisms emitting increasing amounts of CO2, until the human population is in decline, even if there are no machines, the increasing human populations, and livestock required to feed them simply guarantee it.
If the human population begins to decline as a result of high CO2 concentrations, we have a self-correcting situation, as there will be fewer humans destroying forests and other CO2 sinks.
CO2 concentrations will proportionally drop, and eventually, an equillibrium will be reached.
It is unreasonable to assume "increasing CO2 concentrations caused by human release will instantly kill all humans".
Instead, nature will take care of its own, eventually, and there is very little reason to be concerned about it, other than to understand [as best as you can], what might happen.
Yes, above a certain concentration which has not been reached, it might be toxic, and which is not in any particular danger of being reached.
Definitely, CO2 concentrations of 2% or higher are potentially noticeable and twice that is toxic to the frailest humans, but not at concentrations human release of CO2 would ever realistically result in.
The high-concentration toxicity of CO2 is not a realistic problem with CO2 emissions or the amount of CO2 reasonably anticipated to be in earth's atmosphere.
Current levels of earth CO2 are about 400ppm or 0.04%. I will grant to you, that if CO2 levels ever reach 1000ppm (which cannot happen even within your great great great great great great grandchildren's lifetime), we should start getting a little concerned
about that for other reasons, even that is would still just be 0.1% CO2.
CFCs are a much greater concern, and contribute 4 orders of magnitude more towards global warming than the release of an equivalent amount of CO2,.
Sunlight is needed to safely remove CO2 from the atmosphere (via photosynthesis.
Shading the sun does not imply stopping or reducing photosynthesis.
"Shading" the sun possibly means to utilize special sheets and partial reflection of certain spectra of electromagnetic energy, via filtering devices placed in the upper atmosphere.
And filtering, blocking, or reflecting a percentage of certain spectra of light that would otherwise be absorbed by the atmosphere,
and leaving alone light colors involved in photosynthesis.
In that case, if only light colors that are absorbed by the atmosphere and converted to heat would be obstructed:
a drop in temperature by a couple of degrees, could be the only perceptible surface effect
It has privacy issues similar to tracking cookies. It is like a tracking cookie you cannot delete.
It's not necessarily that it contains private information in itself, but it can be used to uniquely identify you.
If someone records what information goes with that UID once, then it's possible to match your UID to that information in the future,
either by a past or future gathering from that party, or by purchasing the information to match against the UID from an information broker
Slashdot Mirror
This means that the Apple-produced runtime will not be maintained at the same level, and may be removed from future versions of Mac OS X.
Obvious reason: people aren't using the Apple-produced runtime in Mac Applications?
Applications developed in Objective-C / Cocoa are more specific to the OS X platform, providing Apple a competitive advantage when developers build their apps using Cocoa, instead of something portable like Java.
Not in Apple's best interest for Mac apps to be developed using Java.
Not only can they be run on other platforms, but Java-based apps may not conform to Apple UI design guidelines
However.... exploiting any intellectual property says nothing about "making something intellectual property" that was not intellectual property before.
And doesn't say anything about giving the commission the exclusive right to exploit any intellectual property.
The most obvious definition of 'exploit intellectual property' is.... they can sell post cards with a picture of the historic place featured, even if someone else took the picture, and didn't give them permission.
It says nothing about "seizing any intellectual property" or "denying other people the right to exploit their own intellectual property, if relating to the monument", or "creating intellectual property rights from thin air", and enforcing them retroactively
The British public pays to maintain these sites, and an awful lot of money at that, so why should some company be allowed to step in and enjoy the benefits of the public's investment?
Because they took photographs a long time ago, maybe long before the current 'owners' of the property were involved, and don't need the public's investment? e.g. The public's investment has nothing to do with it
They are 5000 years old. You think the public needs to continuously invest anything in them, to keep them existing? All the public has to do is not destroy them.
A VPN is no more secure than SSH, and if the VPN is compromised, chances are you are in worse shape than if one server were compromised, plus VPNs are susceptible to the same type of attack as SSH. While an "illusion of safety" tends to propagate among VPN users, this arrangement is no more secure.
VPNs have their place, which is not to secure remote management sessions to server infrastructure. VPNs are for joining pieces of a corporate LAN together over an untrusted network, where the LAN runs insecure protocols, and workers who need access to remote things on a corporate LAN, using insecure protocols such as Windows file sharing.
And you stated a big issue so I barely need to -- the VPN server can die, and probably when you're across the country.
but things like routers and switches have no business being administered by an unverified source.
Who said anything about routers and switches? We're talking about servers. Most routers and switches deployed on the internet don't even support SSH for management, they either use either serial only, or plaintext Telnet + Serial.
Routers and switches shouldn't be exposing control plane management ports outside the local subnet, because (in general), they don't have the hardware to resist a flood, and software is infrequently updated on routers, they would be ideal DoS and hacker targets.
Routers and switches can be administered over the serial port, with the serial console switch you dial into via modem or SSH into, again, with public key authentication.
Ideological arguments have no place in developing software for your boss.
If they ask you for feature X, you can inform them of the issues and give them a choice. The choice to avoid "feature bloat" is not your choice, if all the features are demanded or wanted by the customer.
Nothing really excuses failing to validate input, whether 'abbreviations' of some sort are allowed or not.
Checking for a 'year value not provided' and appending a default in the user interface code is so trivial and relevant to the problem, that it seems absurd to claim that it is not the best solution here.
No, simply listening to what users want will almost never work - because they don't know. Almost always, they have some vague idea, but that's it.
You have to listen to what they say, and intuit what they want, then formulate it, and ask them if that is right.
If you can't do that much, software development for a customer is probably the wrong field for you. Though you might manage to do code monkey / slave to the designer work, who works to someone else's precisely defined spec.
Since that doesn't require intuit'ing that much, and if your code is wrong, it will just get kicked back to you by the reviewer (aka slavedriver)
then when the user asked for a trivial feature to return the workload back to what it was before, the vendor gave up and trashed all their work
Obviously... the vendor couldn't take even the smallest criticism, and apparently decided they wanted to make a point out of the whole thing, rather than address things in a reasonable manner.
This is not a technology problem, this is a customer service problem. The parent did have one thing right, however, he obviously should not be in software development working for a customer.
Why didn't you just alter the application to interpolate the year, rather than inserting the form directly into the database without validating it?
Sounds like bad design of the form app.
Government officials spending tax dollars will always pay, regardless of how badly things get screwed up.
They always pay, but they might not pay you. They may redirect their future business to a new project
Open source is great when you want some special behavior in the sales quoting tool that only a tiny fractions of others anywhere would want but you otherwise want the base set of features the mass market wants.
Quoting is something a lot of businesses will want some fine-tuned control over. The software should be designed to bend to their business needs, not the other way around.
This strongly suggests that 'sales quoting' tools should have templating and scripting features, for advanced users, so each business can roll out the software without code changes, but with some scripts installed that suit their special needs.
They could have turned their class A into tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars...
Unlikely. They would have to convince ARIN to allow them to go along with it, in order to have any transfer of addresses acknowledged in the proper places: without that, the only way to distribute IPs would be for them to get into the ISP and DNS business, providing IP and Reverse DNS services to people.
Which could be more expensive than "tens of millions"
Under current policies, they could have revokable sub-delegations of their IP address space acknowledged, if they signed the RSA agreement with ARIN, but to be able to make any type of permanent transfer, they would have to agree to the full RSA, making the IP space no longer "legacy", in other words, current policies would start applying to it, RIR fees, etc
if IP allocation were governed for market forces instead of some dudes that demand paperwork and some justification...
What are you talking about? IP allocat is governed by market forces.
Who do YOU think ARIN is?
Hint: ARIN is an industry organization whose members are the ISPs and resource holders in North America.
Also, without ISPs all over the world recognizing ARIN's allocations, ARIN has no power of enforcement of its wishes, it simply does what its officers elected by the broader community of ISPs agree that they want ARIN to do.
Nortel that is now nothing but a bankrupt shell has another 16 million.
And the fact they are now 'nothing but a bankrupt shell' is exactly what's going to stop them from being able to take the specific affirmative actions that are required to return IP addresses.
Their creditors are going to want those networks, and therefore, the IP addresses that go with them.
Perhaps an anti-Greg Whitman person on staff at bit.ly changed where the URL redirects to?
Or performed a MITM attack, when the tweet was being sent, to rewrite the URL.
Cue twilight zone music
I think Google has offered to delete the data, but some goverments ordered them not to. If i were google, i wouldnt go the "extra mile" as it may cause them a law suite. I would contact the other goverments where data has been collected
The answer should have been... "We already deleted it, sorry."
Why the heck would they announced that they inadvertently collected data, without guaranteeing its destruction first, so the data would be gone before anyone could dare ask for some order to request preservation?
Oh yes, *that* won't have any dire economic effects. Unemployment uptick/Deflationary spiral FTW!
No. The government's reckless use of money, and failure to control minimize costs, and unnecessary programs and spending are extremely toxic and causing the unemployment upticks and deflationary spiral.
If the cost cutbacks were accompanied with the corresponding tax cut to return wasted revenue to the "shareholders" (aka, the Taxpayers), the most probable immediate results would be a big drop in unemployment, the start of an economic boom, and the long term results would be extremely favorable.
The government's shopping and hiring sprees are extremely detrimental.
Being the largest employer does not mean you employ the majority of the populace.
However, it should be noted the government seems to be the only company expanding during a recession.
The Federal government needs to do the financially and economically responsible thing and cut its budgets and lay off at least half its workforce, concentrating on the highest-paid least-productive workers.
Close our markets to all of China's exports.
The problem is most of the toys required for our economy to work are made in china.
Even our military relies on gadgets made in china; if we close all imports from them, we will be sitting ducks when their invasion force arrives.
I assume 2020 Report on music video 1980 - Part 2 of 2 must be what they wanted to take down.
A single CD being shared by two people? Sounds like copyright infrignment to me.
Yep. Two total cases of copyright infringement (one per person).
And the result will be DMCA letters sent to the gas stations to stop supplying that car with gas, followed by DMCA letters to the grocery store demanding they stop supplying the infringers with food and drinks they can consume, to enable them to continue to infringe, followed up ultimately, by a DMCA Cease and Decist letter to the almighty God, c/o the church they are members of them, demanding that the lord almighty cease and decist allowing these alleged infringers to continue to exist.
This could also be serving self-interest of keeping a low profile. Smashing a window attracts a lot more immediate attention than fumbling with a lock.
It will be immediately obvious that the car has been busted, the police might get called sooner, resulting in a catch of the thief still nearby
There happens to be a nearby goldilocks planet (venus) who is DEEP in the throws of runaway greenhouse effects, which would make a PRIME test target, devoid of any bioethical considerations, since it is devoid of life.
The problem with Venus is you don't have massive infrastructure in place to be able to measure a 0.0000000001% difference in temperature caused by your shade, at enough places.
CO2 is toxic. Above a certain concentration
All this "CO2" stuff should be among the least of our concerns compared to overpopulation of the planet; global human population increase, and world wide civilization and social infrastructure unsustainable at current rates of human reproduction and population growth.
There is no evidence to support the theory that concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere are a toxic hazard, or will be a toxic hazard, even if CO2 climbs at 5ppm per year (which would be unpredented), it would take almost 50000 years, before a toxic level is attained. Obviously with even slightly higher concentrations of CO2, the CO2-munching bacteria and vegetation would be proliferating in higher numbers, and applying substantial downward pressure to the rate of CO2 increase. The idea that CO2 concentration can grow without bound, by accident has no basis; there is no reason to assume that.
To reduce CO2 concentrations for anytime soon, the destruction of forests and similar have to be stopped, and need to be fully replenished as soon as possible. It is simply unrealistic to speculate that the mere cessation of fossil fuel use would have any significant effect on atmospheric CO2 concentrations, as there will always be a lot of organisms emitting increasing amounts of CO2, until the human population is in decline, even if there are no machines, the increasing human populations, and livestock required to feed them simply guarantee it.
If the human population begins to decline as a result of high CO2 concentrations, we have a self-correcting situation, as there will be fewer humans destroying forests and other CO2 sinks. CO2 concentrations will proportionally drop, and eventually, an equillibrium will be reached. It is unreasonable to assume "increasing CO2 concentrations caused by human release will instantly kill all humans".
Instead, nature will take care of its own, eventually, and there is very little reason to be concerned about it, other than to understand [as best as you can], what might happen.
Yes, above a certain concentration which has not been reached, it might be toxic, and which is not in any particular danger of being reached. Definitely, CO2 concentrations of 2% or higher are potentially noticeable and twice that is toxic to the frailest humans, but not at concentrations human release of CO2 would ever realistically result in. The high-concentration toxicity of CO2 is not a realistic problem with CO2 emissions or the amount of CO2 reasonably anticipated to be in earth's atmosphere. Current levels of earth CO2 are about 400ppm or 0.04%. I will grant to you, that if CO2 levels ever reach 1000ppm (which cannot happen even within your great great great great great great grandchildren's lifetime), we should start getting a little concerned about that for other reasons, even that is would still just be 0.1% CO2.
CFCs are a much greater concern, and contribute 4 orders of magnitude more towards global warming than the release of an equivalent amount of CO2,.
Sunlight is needed to safely remove CO2 from the atmosphere (via photosynthesis.
Shading the sun does not imply stopping or reducing photosynthesis. "Shading" the sun possibly means to utilize special sheets and partial reflection of certain spectra of electromagnetic energy, via filtering devices placed in the upper atmosphere.
And filtering, blocking, or reflecting a percentage of certain spectra of light that would otherwise be absorbed by the atmosphere, and leaving alone light colors involved in photosynthesis.
In that case, if only light colors that are absorbed by the atmosphere and converted to heat would be obstructed: a drop in temperature by a couple of degrees, could be the only perceptible surface effect
It has privacy issues similar to tracking cookies. It is like a tracking cookie you cannot delete.
It's not necessarily that it contains private information in itself, but it can be used to uniquely identify you.
If someone records what information goes with that UID once, then it's possible to match your UID to that information in the future, either by a past or future gathering from that party, or by purchasing the information to match against the UID from an information broker
That the apps with problems are the top ones.
How do they become top apps?
They work, are designed well, and are appealing to their audience both graphically and functionally.
How do apps that best meet these criteria get built? By hiring top-notch programmers, web designers, and marketers.
What do you need to hire top-notch programmers, designers, and marketers? Lots of financial backing?
How do you get lots of financial backing and excellent investors? By selling a very good business plan.
How do you get lots of money to fund development? Advertising and information brokering.
What do advertisers pay a lot for? Extremely well-targetted ads that take into account specific characteristics of the audience.
What do information brokers pay a lot for? Private information about your users.